McCain's catching up?

According to The Morning Call, John McCain is catching up to Barack Obama in campaign spending. While this doesn't come as too much of a surprise, the following quote from the article might surprise many and show that the spread in this election is much further is much more then any of the polls are indicating:

"A map of the states where McCain and the RNC are spending their money also illustrates the defensive nature of their 11th hour strategy. Except for Pennsylvania, the McCain-GOP focus was on trying to hold states that President Bush won in 2004."

The impact of television on elections

In spite of the fact that I have argued in the past about the possibility of the internet overtaking television as the most important media source for political knowledge (and maybe even political influence), in light of the recent readings I would like to make almost the opposite claim that television plays the largest media role in political campaigns and this campaign is no exception. In addition, I believe that television is responsible for bringing information to the masses, which is then further looked into on the internet.

According to Broadcast Newsroom:

"In its newest study, Political Pulse , CAB found that people are most likely to first learn about a political candidate or issue from television, with 80% of respondents citing television as a likely source."

With this recent study in mind I would like to explore the impact of one of the most talked about clips from this campaign:

Although this quote has already received a lot of attention (See the results for a google search of "Mccain calls obama that one" which leads to over 14 million hits) I would like to point out two very important effects that this one small, two-word phrase had on the current election.

The first effect is that this one gesture lead to an assortment of reactions that stretched as far as accusing McCain of trying to make Mr. Obama look like "the dangerous other" who "Americans should not open the door for." These negative reactions are clearly not going to help Mr. McCain and might be something that voters remember when they enter the booth to pull the lever.
In addition, Mr. Obama, in barely reacting to the comment, continued to show his ability to maintain poise and control even in the worst of situations, which will remain in many voters minds and effect who they choose to vote for.
Lastly, this clip with its great camera work by almost every news station's camera crew brought to light what Mutz and Reeves (p. 3) point out about the effect of zooming in and different camera angles. They state that television networks sometimes create "a highly unnatural experience for viewers, one in which they view conflict from an extremely intimate perspective, and one that would be highly unlikely to occur in the real world." They further state that "the viewer's intimate perspective intensifies an already negative reaction." This new perspective (which is also aided by the "town hall" debate format may have lead to viewers seeing both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain differently then they had before and these viewers may therefore change (or decide for the first time) who they will vote for.

I would also like to point out one other important finding of the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (CAB) study quoted above and that is that television is the most likely place for people to FIRST find out political information. This being the case, I would still like to suggest that the internet plays a major roll in the way people get and react to political information (in addition, the internet did rank second in the place for people to first learn political information). In addition to the convenience of being able to search for almost anything and receiving information almost instantaneously, the internet also provides a place to watch (and re-watch) video clips. This, in light of the findings of Mutz, and Mutz and Reeves, can have great effect on the negative feelings people have towards one specific candidate and politician in general.

Another possible "Recount"?

Although I do recognize that there has been much debate about Recount's accuracy and bias (a good example of this debate is found on Yahoo Answers), after watching the documentary and doing further research, I have to say that I agree with the review from The Dallas Morning News which stated that:

"Recount is accurate and fair. Some may find fault with the Republican team being presented as too thuggish or unscrupled. Others may object to the Democratic side seeming too conflicted and ineffectual. But behind all that spin is a movie that shows both sides of both sides. One more thing: It's not just fair and accurate, it's also pretty good."

I also believe that there are many important issues about the way that the United States government operates, the electoral process as a whole and how different campaigns build their strategy and act throughout a campaign.

First, towards the beginning of the documentary, the Gore and Bush legal teams chose to take two opposite stands on the media and the strategy they would take in dealing with the issue at hand. One the one hand the Gore campaign chose to use the media (there is a quote from the character playing Ron Klain (Kevin Spacey) gets up from the very first meeting as says "I have to go call the New York Times" and chooses to use as many protests (Like the one led by Jesse Jackson). On the other hand, James Baker (Played by Tom Wilkinson) says that he wants to see "no newspapers" and only chooses to use protests towards the very end of the campaign and the Recount process.

Second, the problem of military absentee voting could become a problem in this election. Although military absentee ballots will be accepted in the upcoming election, there are many technicalities in the absentee ballot process that make it almost possible for soldiers to ensure that their votes are counted. Furthermore, there have already been military absentee ballots thrown out throughout the country including in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Third, the current issue of Time Magazine has raised 7 possible things that may prevent people from voting, including "Long lines, ID checks and court challenges," which I not only agree with, but believe are issues that are not easily solvable.

Fourth, in the documentary Baker discusses the effect of the networks calling the election for Al Gore before the polls closed may have hurt the Bush campaign because people may have thought the election was over and therefore didn't go and vote. Although record voter turnout is expected this November, I believe that the fact that many people may think the election is over before it really is may come into play again (and not only towards the end of the day, but even before election day itself).

Lastly, the documentary not only shows the power of the "4th branch of government" (the media), but also shows the power of the 3rd brand, the Courts. Two highlights of the court's power from the documentary are the decisions made by the Supreme Court in Bush V. Gore , which many believe decided the ultimate outcome of the election, and the scene showing the Gore Campaign hoping for a certain Justice to preside over their initial hearing in Florida.

John McCain and President Bush

Although President Bush did endorse John McCain in his bid for the presidency, I don't understand why they are so closely linked (as seen above in the recent Obama ad). Does is come as a surprise to anyone that Mr. McCain would vote with the REPUBLICAN president, even if it's at a huge percentage like 90%?

I would like to point out a few statistics from The Washington Post about Senate voting in general that might surprise you:

1) Senators vote with their party 84.2% of the time

2) Barack Obama votes with the Democratic Party 96% of the time.

3) John McCain voted with the Republican Party 88.1% of the time.

Now although this may show that John McCain goes out of his way to vote with President Bush as he has admitted to voting with the President "90% of the time," but I think there are more striking conclusions one can draw from these statistics:

1) If there was a Democratic President, Barack Obama would be very likely to vote with that President no matter what (note that he ranks 10th and Joe Biden ranks 5th in voting along party lines)

2) John McCain might truly be a "maverick" as his percentage is very low compared to most Senators.

I'm not writing this in order to endorse one candidate over the other, I am simply trying to point out why this newest ad may highlight something that isn't really an issue, and something that should be made an issue in the other direction (is surprises me that at this point seeing as the McCain campaign needs to try almost anything to stay in this race they haven't gone to more statistics like this, but there is still a long way to go)

More important then our past time?

Although we don't know who will play in the World Series, Fox has agreed to delay the first pitch of game 6 (if there is one) to air a half hour Barack Obama ad.

Fox said in a statement:

"Fox will accommodate Senator Obama's desire to communicate with voters in this longform format."

Furthermore, Fox went on to say that

"We are pleased that Major League Baseball has agreed to delay the first pitch of World Series Game 6 for a few minutes in order for Fox to carry his (Barack Obama's) program on Oct. 29. If requested, the network would be willing to make similar time available to Senator McCain's campaign."

This is not the first time in this campaign that a sports game's start time has been moves. You may recall that in September the NFL moved the start of the season opener between the Washington Redskins and New York Giants in order to ensure that the game would be completed by the time John McCain accepted the Republican party's presidential nomination.

What people really know

Although we all know that Americans don't know too much about the election and the issues, but this is a funny clip from the Howard Stern show (Warning: this sight may be offensive to some):

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

[IN addition, I think that this is a good example of how pollsters can manipulate the answers that they get. Notice that the person asking the questions says everything with confidence and most of the responses are dont quickly without thinking)

Great New York Times resource

I found this link that tracks the ad's of both Barack Obama and John McCain. It might be helpful for analysis now and in the future.

Negative Campaigning

Negative Campaigning came to the forefront in last night's debate:


I want to point out a few things we have already discussed and few observations that I have about this specific part of the debate:

1) Neither of them really answered the question (which isn't a surprise, but I'm pointing it out anyway)

2) We know that negative campaigning works to some extent when it is not taken to too much of an extreme.

3) I loved McCain's attempt to defend the people who comes to his rallies. This is another point that isn't much of a surprise, but I think that it is still important that he stood behind his supporters. My only concern about the answer he gave is that it may turn away those who are undecided (and we discussed in class that at this point those are the people who the candidates need to be focusing on because most Americans have decided who they are going to vote for and very few of the already decided Americans will change at all at this point.)

The importance of the Jewish People

Due to the fact that there has been an ongoing air war (see Right from the Left Coast) and even an editorial in the New York Times regarding the impact of the Jewish vote and the lengths that candidates go to in order to influence this very important vote, I decided to research the actual impact of the Jewish vote. Sadly to say, I have concluded that we probably don't matter all that much.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, outside of 1916, 1920, 1956 and 1980, the Jewish people have overwhelmingly voted for the nominee from the Democratic party in every presidential election. Furthermore, according to Jay Lefkowitz (who happens to be a member of my synagogue) in a 2005 article in Commentary Magazine:

"The central fact about the Jewish vote is, after all, not how changeable but how stable it is. American Jews do not merely favor Democrats; they are the second most reliable bloc of Democratic voters in the country, exceeded only by African-Americans."

Based on these two facts, it seems that the Jewish vote is important to elections and has had an impact the success, or failure, of the Democratic nominee. HOWEVER, we must remember another important fact about of the Jewish vote (again pointed out by Lefkowitz):

"American Jews constitute only 3 percent of the voting public"

So, in spite of the fact that we as Jews (and the strong efforts of Sarah Silverman) may think that we are a significant part of the election process and the lengths many candidates go to in order to influence the Jewish vote, we as Jews still don't matter all that much (many do argue that in this election 3% might be significant especially in this election, but I happen to disagree).

[For further reading you may want to see an interesting section on Yahoo Answers regarding this issue]

ELECTION DAY EVENT STILL NOTHING FINALIZED

WHAT ARE WE DOING ON ELECTION DAY?

WE ONLY HAVE 3 WEEKS AND MUST SEND SOME SORT OF PROPOSAL IN ASAP.

SO FAR WE HAVE TV'S WITH FOOD:

WHAT FOOD?

HOW MANY TVS?

Hey it could happen

I just wanted to share a joke with you all that was passed on to me.

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=380002&altf=Ebojfm&altl=Hpsepo

Enjoy!

Do attack's work?

According to and AOL News poll that I took this morning:

%55 of people who took the poll believe that using Barack Obama's past associations with Mr. Ayers is fair game.

%44 OF PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE POLE BELIEVE THAT NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING (SUCH AS THIS ONE) WILL NOT BENEFIT EITHER CANDIDATE.


Just thought this was interesting food for thought.

Finger Pointing

I think one aspect of West that is always interesting to note is "The Blame Game."

Although Dr. Pimpare has pointed out that this year's campaign is not as negative as those of years past there still is a significant amount of finger pointing.

For example:
1) Obama (and Biden in the debate) constantly comparing McCain to President Bush and saying that they are one in the same.
2) Sarah Palin constantly being called "inexperiences" (and for that matter Obama constantly being called "inexperienced" [remember he has NO executive experience])
3) McCain attacking Obama for "taking from the rich and giving to the poor"
4) McCain (and Palin) blaming (and attacking Obama) for his lack of support for the "surge" in Iraq.

These are just some examples, and I think that unfortunately this will never go away.
Attacking and blaming will always, as much as I hope this isn't true, be a necessary evil in campaigning.

Debate Ratings

According to The Baltimore Sun:

Thursday night's vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden was seen by 69.989 million viewers, the second-largest TV audience for any presidential or vice presidential debate since Nielsen started counting the number of persons watching debates in 1976.

An interesting statistic, and I think that this number could be significant, but I was unable to find any data about WHO was watching (if you find any PLEASE post it in the comments), which I think would much more useful to judge who "won" the debate (whether it was Palin appealing to the more entertainment hungry Americans or Biden appealing to those seeking more knowledge and skill from the Vice President).

One thing people keep missing in these debates is that without the "important" Americans in swing states and throughout the country watching them they don't serve their purpose. No one doubts that Poli Sci junkies like ourselves will spend 90 minutes of our lives watching this, but the question is whether or not the average American was watching (although I think many had to be because the number is so large, but that doesn't mean that the number is any more significant).

Blame the Media

Who doesn't blame the media these days?

I do not disagree with the fact that the media distorts the statements of politicians, but was this really the time and place to say this?

I think Ms. Palin's words are definitely true, but maybe she could have (and should have) used this time to sound intelligent about something else and not point out the media's short comings?

What do you think?

Restateing the role (or lack there of) of the Vice Presidential candidate

While some (Including William L. Benoit and David Airne) argue that Vice Presidential debates have some impact on the election we must remember that, as Dr. Pimpare has states numerous times, people don't vote for the name that is second in line when it comes time to step into the booth, they vote for the name at the top of the ticket.



Today's New York Times recalled the scene of Matthew Dowd (President Bush's chief strategist in 2004 who was working for Senator Lloyd Bentsen in 1988) sitting between Al Gore and Dick Gephardt watching the debate between Vice Presidential candidates between Bentsen and Dan Quayle.
Dowd recounts:

“We were sitting in the audience, I was sitting between Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, and everyone was like ‘Oh that’s, great, great, but it didn’t matter anymore. You’re 30 days or so out and people are stating to look at the presidential candidates. The race had formed.”

Although I do agree with the general rule that these debates, and vice presidential candidates in general, don't have a huge impact on the ultimate outcome of the election, sometimes the candidates have an opportunity to have an impact, and Sarah Palin had, and lost, a golden opportunity last night. As Barack Obama continues to widen the gap between himself and John McCain, Ms. Palin could have helped the Republican ticket greatly and simply didn't take advantage of this great opportunity.
As Mr. Dowd stated:

"You’re in a race right now that is beginning to solidify into a five- or six-point Barack Obama lead, and each day forward with lead holding is not a good day for McCain. It doesn’t contribute to what they really need to do. They have just a little over 30 days to start to make up some serious ground, at a time when people are already starting to vote.”

It is because of this ground that must be made up that an "adequate" performance by Ms. Palin just wasn't good enough. Many people (myself included) were bracing for the worse because there is always potential (see Katie Couric interview) for Ms. Palin to do something catastrophic, and she didn't do that last night, but she also didn't perform like the Republican Party needed.

With the hole the Republican Party is in right now it will be a long and tough month for McCain and Palin and it seems that they need to start making up ground soon. I think that the turning point could come at the next presidential debate, and I hope that Mr. McCain doesn't dig a deeper hole so that we have some sort of race come election day.

Initial Reaction

In this, my first post after the vice presidential debate, I want to express my initial reactions to the debate (although I have taken a little while to think about what I saw and was said).

I think that the debate was in one word "entertaining." Watching Ms. Palin skillfully (or maybe not so) side step questions throughout the first half of the debate was probably the best example of this.

I think if we look further we can say that each of the candidates had a different objective when they entered Washington University, and each succeeded:
For Ms. Palin it was simple, get America back behind her like they were after the convention. She will never be the skilled speaker or intellectual thinker that Mr. Biden is, but will be able to "rally the troops" around her and the Republican party.
For Mr. Biden, his objective was to show that he "knows what he's talking about" and to not attack Ms. Palin too badly because that would turn Americans off (because we love to show sympathy for Sarah Palin). Mr. Biden was able to show his experience and knowledge by answering most of the questions head on and looking straight into the camera while spitting out statistic after statistic.

All in all I think the debate was both "entertaining" and surprisingly low key.

I look forward to sharing lengthy conversation with all of you about this.